Amenper: Threatened to Shoot Down Israel Air Force if tries to Strike Iran.

Kuwaiti paper claims unnamed Israeli minister with good ties with the US administration ‘revealed the attack plan to John Kerry.’

The Bethlehem-based news agency Ma’an has cited a Kuwaiti newspaper report Saturday, that US President Barack Obama thwarted an Israeli military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2014 by threatening to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.

According to Al-Jarida, the Netanyahu government took the decision to strike Iran some time in 2014 soon after Israel had discovered the United States and Iran had been involved in secret talks over Iran’s nuclear program and were about to sign an agreement in that regard behind Israel’s back.

The report claimed that an unnamed Israeli minister who has good ties with the US administration revealed the attack plan to Secretary of State John Kerry, and that Obama then threatened to shoot down the Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.

Al-Jarida quoted “well-placed” sources as saying that Netanyahu, along with Minister of Defense Moshe Yaalon, and then-Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, had decided to carry out airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear program after consultations with top security commanders.

According to the report, “Netanyahu and his commanders agreed after four nights of deliberations to task the Israeli army’s chief of staff, Benny Gantz, to prepare a qualitative operation against Iran’s nuclear program. In addition, Netanyahu and his ministers decided to do whatever they could do to thwart a possible agreement between Iran and the White House because such an agreement is, allegedly, a threat to Israel’s security.”

The sources added that Gantz and his commanders prepared the requested plan and that Israeli fighter jets trained for several weeks in order to make sure the plans would work successfully. Israeli fighter jets reportedly even carried out experimental flights in Iran’s airspace after they managed to break through radars.

Brzezinski’s idea. Former US diplomat Zbigniew Brzezinski, who enthusiastically campaigned for Obama in 2008, called on him to shoot down Israeli planes if they attack Iran. “They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?” said the former national security advisor to former President Jimmy Carter in an interview with the Daily Beast.

“We have to be serious about denying them that right,” he said. “If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a ‘Liberty’ in reverse.’”Israel mistakenly attacked the American Liberty ship during the Six-Day War in 1967.

Brzezinski was a top candidate to become an official advisor to President Obama, but he was downgraded after Republican and pro-Israel Democratic charges during the campaign that Brzezinski’s anti-Israel attitude would damage Obama at the polls.

Obama Threatened To Shoot Down Israeli Jets

This is certainly ridiculous. Obama fighting against Israel would certainly bring about a civil war in our country.
Check it out:

The Bethlehem-based news agency Ma’an has cited a Kuwaiti newspaper report Saturday, that US President Barack Obama thwarted an Israeli military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2014 by threatening to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.

According to Al-Jarida, the Netanyahu government took the decision to strike Iran some time in 2014 soon after Israel had discovered the United States and Iran had been involved in secret talks over Iran’s nuclear program and were about to sign an agreement in that regard behind Israel’s back.

The report claimed that an unnamed Israeli minister who has good ties with the US administration revealed the attack plan to Secretary of State John Kerry, and that Obama then threatened to shoot down the Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.

Al-Jarida quoted “well-placed” sources as saying that Netanyahu, along with Minister of Defense Moshe Yaalon, and then-Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, had decided to carry out airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear program after consultations with top security commanders.

On The Eve Of Netanyahu’s Speech, A Shocking Report About An Obama Threat To Israel

Numerous reports claim Obama was ready to give the order…

Despite reports by a number of Middle East news agencies, including the Israeli news source Arutz Sheva, the White House denies that President Obama threatened to deploy the U.S. military to shoot down Israeli warplanes last year.

A Kuwaiti newspaper on Saturday said that Obama was ready to give the order to shoot down Israeli jets if they had been sent to attack nuclear facilities in Iran. Reportedly, such an attack was imminent after Israel discovered that Iran and the United States were engaged in secret talks over Iran’s nuclear program and the nation’s suspected intent to develop nuclear weapons that could be used against Israel.

The emergence and swift distribution of these reports became yet another headache for the White House only hours before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s scheduled speech before a joint session of Congress.

The Washington Times says that administration officials late Sunday called the reports of Obama’s shoot-down threat “totally false.” The National Security Council sent out an eleventh-hour tweet denying there was ever such a threat.

Appearing on ABC’s This Week program, Secretary of State John Kerry didn’t address the latest controversy directly; but, according to the Washington Times, he did attempt to downplay reports of a widening rift between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu over the Israeli leader’s Capitol Hill speech on Tuesday.

In fact, Kerry went so far as to claim that Israel is safer today thanks to the Obama administration’s progress on a nuclear deal with Iran — a deal that many Republicans argue is far too lenient and forgiving of Iran’s intent to develop nuclear weapons.

The Washington Times reported, “’Israel is safer today, and that is the standard that we will apply to any agreement going forward. It is to guarantee that we will know that Iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon under the procedure that we’re putting in place,’ Mr. Kerry said on This Week.”

As for the genesis of the flurry of reports claiming President Obama was threatening to shoot down Israeli jets if they had set their sights on Iranian targets in 2014, the Washington Times noted what Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski had maintained.

“They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?” the Carter administration national security adviser said in a 2008 interview with the Daily Beast.

“We have to be serious about denying them that right,” he said. “If they fly over, you go up and confront them.

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits Washington and speaks to Congress, bypassing the Obama administration, the stakes could not be higher. But President Obama is not the only, and certainly not the most significant, opponent of Israel. The important new book, “The USA and The New World Order,” features a debate in which one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s key advisers, Alexander Dugin, criticizes Israel’s “imperialist” role in the Middle East and America’s role in the world as a whole.

A careful reading of this important debate, which occurred in 2011 and has recently been published in book form, demonstrates that it is Russia, which is the main threat to Israel and the United States.

Dugin’s debate opponent, the anti-communist Brazilian writer and philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, sees Dugin as the brains behind Putin’s geopolitical strategy that embraces “genocidal violence.” He notes that Dugin has “advocated the systematic killing of Ukrainians—a people who, according to him, do not belong to the human species.”

As for Israel, the debate transcript shows that Dugin regards the Jewish state as “a modern capitalist and Atlantist entity and an ally of American imperialism.” This is a rather straightforward view of how the Moscow regime views Israel today, and why it backs the government of Iran with weapons, nuclear technology, and diplomatic support.

The term “Atlantist” or “Atlanticist” is meant to refer to trans-Atlantic cooperation between Europe, the United States and Canada in defense and other areas.

Iran is a key part of the anti-American alliance. Dugin has explained in the article, “Eurasianism, Iran, and Russia’s Foreign Policy,” that a “strategic alliance” exists between Iran and Russia, and Russia “will not cease its efforts to reduce sanctions against Iran” over its support for terrorism and pursuit of nuclear weapons.

In the debate with de Carvalho, Dugin proclaims, “I have nothing against Israel,” then quickly added, “but its cruelty in repressing the Palestinians is evident.”

To which de Carvalho counters, “The rockets that the Palestinians fire practically every day at non-military areas of Israel are never reported by the international big media, whereas any raid by Israel against Palestinian military installations always provokes the greatest outcry all over the world.”

He tells Dugin, “I know the facts, my friend. I know the dose of violence on both sides. I know, for instance, that the Israelis never use human shields, while the Palestinians almost always do it. I know that, in Israel, Muslims have civil rights and are protected by the police, while, in countries under Islamic rule, non-Muslims are treated as dogs and often stoned to death.”

This exchange is only part of a debate that puts Israel in the context of a global conflict that Dugin sees as “The West against the rest.” The world is going through a “global transition,” away from dominance by the U.S. and its allies, he asserts.

De Carvalho commented that Dugin, himself the son of a KGB officer, is “the political mentor of a man [Vladimir Putin] who is the very incarnation of the KGB.” He said that Dugin has emerged as “the creator and guide of one of the widest and most ambitious geopolitical plans of all time—a plan adopted and followed as closely as possible by a nation which has the largest army in the world, the most efficient and daring secret service and a network of alliances that stretches itself through four continents.”

De Carvalho describes Eurasianism as “a synthesis of the defunct USSR and the Tzarist Empire” that includes philosophical elements of Marxism-Leninism, Russian Messianism, Nazism, and esotericism. The last element is a reference to certainoccult influences in Russia.

“In order to fulfill his plans,” de Carvalho explains, “he counts on Vladimir Putin’s strong arm, the armies of Russia and China and every terrorist organization of the Middle East, not to mention practically every leftist, fascist and neo-Nazi movements which today place themselves under the banner of his ‘Eurasian’ project.”

He says the historical roles played by Russia and China in sponsoring and arming terrorist groups help explain why global Islam has targeted the United States and Israel. “Some theoreticians of the Caliphate allege that socialism, once triumphant in the world, will need a soul, and Islam will provide it with one,” he notes.

In this global war for domination, however, he also identifies a “globalist elite,” including in the U.S. Government and society, which wants to destroy traditional Christianity and share in “the spoils” from the decaying west.

What we are witnessing, he writes, is an “alliance of Russia with China and the Islamic countries, as well as with part of Western Europe,” that has come together in a “total war against the United States and Israel,” which is to be followed by “the establishment of a worldwide dictatorship.” It is the replacement of an “Atlanticist Order” by the “Eurasian Order.”

For those who doubt such global schemes could come to pass, de Carvalho says that Dugin “is not a dreamer, a macabre poet creating imaginary hecatombs in a dark dungeon infested with rats.” Rather, he is “the mentor of the Putin government and the brains behind Russian foreign policy,” whose ideas “have long ceased to be mere speculations.”

De Carvalho identifies among these “material incarnations” of the Dugin vision the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a group founded by Russia, China, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, which “intends to be the center of a restructuring of military power in the world.” Iran has been an observer state at the SCO since 2005. He also cites the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis, a geopolitical term for countries, which are seen as developing a mechanism to replace NATO, the one-time anti-communist alliance.

Another such international organization is the BRICS alliance of nations, incorporating Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Iran is also discussing joining BRICS.

On January 20, Iran and Russia signed an agreement expanding their military ties. Russian defense minister Sergei Shoigu said Moscow wants to develop a “long-term and multifaceted” military relationship with Iran. Just a few days ago Russiaoffered to sell the Antey-2500 anti- aircraft and ballistic missile system to Iran. “The United States and Israel lobbied Russia to block the missile sale, saying it could be used to shield Iran’s nuclear facilities from possible future air strikes,” Reuters reported.

For its part, the government of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has been warning about Iran while simultaneously conducting cordial relations with Russia and refusing to condemn Putin for invading Ukraine. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman says Israel will maintain “neutrality” in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. “Maintenance of good relations with Russia is a priority moment for Israel and its principal stance,” Lieberman said.

It has been estimated that more than 6,000 people have died in eastern Ukraine since Russia’s invasion of the country. The Obama administration has refused to supply Ukraine with weapons for its own self-defense.

Paris Hilton visits the Hilton hotel where Fidel Castro installed himself more than 50 years ago and takes a ‘selfie’ with Castro’s son

America’s historic rapprochement with Cuba was given a celebrity seal of approval at the weekend when the heiress Paris Hilton visited the hotel her great-grandfather opened in Havana the year before the communist revolution.

The reality television star even met Fidel Castro Diaz-Balart, the son of Fidel Castro, the revolutionary who commandeered and later nationalised her family’s hotel.

Hilton’s trip to Havana’s annual cigar festival, where she was joined by the model Naomi Campbell, came two months after the US began easing curbs on Americans travelling to Cuba.

In March 1958, under the Batista regime, Conrad Hilton opened the Habana Hilton, a 25-floor tower with more than 500 rooms and a casino, that was largest hotel in Latin America at the time. It was designed by the same US architect as the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Los Angeles.

Related Articles

The following year Castro set up his provisional headquarters in the building for several months. According to a history of the hotel his office was in suite 2324. The hotel was nationalised and became the Hotel Habana Libre.

Paris Hilton posted a photograph on the internet of herself in front of the building. She said: “Posing in front of the original ‘Habana Hilton Hotel’ that my great grandfather Conrad opened here in 1958.”

Picture posted by Parish Hilton on her Instagram account

The heiress also commented “Cuba baby!” and “There’s some beautiful architecture here in Cuba.”

Americans can travel to communist Cuba for academic, religious and cultural programs, and the Obama administration is easing restrictions.

In December Mr Obama and Cuban president Raul Castro agreed to restore diplomatic relations, reopen embassies for the first time since 1961, and exchanging prisoners.

A second round of talks between US and Cuban officials were held in Washington last week, following a first round in Havana last month.

Officials on both sides said progress was made but they have yet to set a date for renewal of diplomatic relations and embassies opening.

At the talks Cuba pushed to be removed from a US list of state sponsors of terrorism. It said removal from the list was not a pre-condition for renewal of diplomatic ties, but was a “very important issue” and priority for Cuba.

The US wants to reopen embassies before a regional summit in Panama on April 10 at which Mr Obama and Mr Castro could meet for the first time since the announcement of their intent to normalise relations was made on Dec 17.

US Assistant Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson, head of the US delegation at last week’s talks, said they were productive and encouraging.” She added: “I do think we can get this done in time for the summit.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is visiting the United States this week to speak to Congress on March 3. The Obama administration is upset that Speaker of the House John Boehner invited Netanyahu without consulting with the White House and charged Boehner with political grandstanding. Netanyahu said he was coming to warn the United States of the threat of Iran. Israeli critics of Netanyahu charged that this was a play for public approval to improve his position in Israel’s general election next year. Boehner denied any political intent beyond getting to hear Netanyahu’s views. The Obama administration claimed that the speech threatens the fabric of U.S.-Israeli relations.

Let us begin with the obvious. First, this is a speech, and it is unlikely that Netanyahu could say anything new on the subject of Iran, given that he never stops talking about it. Second, everyone involved is grandstanding. They are politicians, and that’s what they do. Third, the idea that U.S.-Israeli relations can be shredded by a grandstanding speech is preposterous. If that’s all it takes, relations are already shredded.

Speeches aside, there is no question that U.S.-Israeli relations have been changing substantially since the end of the Cold War, and that change, arrested for a while after 9/11, has created distance and tension between the countries. Netanyahu’s speech is merely a symptom of the underlying reality. There are theatrics, there are personal animosities, but presidents and prime ministers come and go. What is important are the interests that bind or separate nations, and the interests of Israel and the United States have to some extent diverged. It is the divergence of interests we must focus on, particularly because there is a great deal of mythology around the U.S.-Israeli relationship created by advocates of a close relationship, opponents of the relationship, and foreign enemies of one or both countries.

Building the U.S.-Israeli Relationship

It is important to begin by understanding that the United States and Israel did not always have a close relationship. While the United States recognized Israel from the beginning, its relationship was cool until after the Six-Day War in 1967. When Israel, along with Britain and France, invaded Egypt in 1956, the United States demanded Israel’s withdrawal from Sinai and Gaza, and the Israelis complied. The United States provided no aid for Israel except for food aid given through a U.N. program that served many nations. The United States was not hostile to Israel, nor did it regard its relationship as crucial.

This began to change before the 1967 conflict, after pro-Soviet coups in Syria and Iraq by Baathist parties. Responding to this threat, the United States created a belt of surface-to-air missiles stretching from Saudi Arabia to Jordan and Israel in 1965. This was the first military aid given to Israel, and it was intended to be part of a system to block Soviet power. Until 1967, Israel’s weapons came primarily from France. Again, the United States had no objection to this relationship, nor was it a critical issue to Washington.

The Six-Day War changed this. After the conflict, the French, wanting to improve relations with the Arabs, cut off weapons sales to Israel. The United States saw Egypt become a Soviet naval and air base, along with Syria. This threatened the U.S. Sixth Fleet and other interests in the eastern Mediterranean. In particular, the United States was concerned about Turkey because the Bosporus in Soviet hands would open the door to a significant Soviet challenge in the Mediterranean and Southern Europe. Turkey was now threatened not only from the north but also from the south by Syria and Iraq. The Iranians, then U.S. allies, forced the Iraqis to face east rather than north. The Israelis forced the Syrians to focus south. Once the French pulled out of their relationship with Israel and the Soviets consolidated their positions in Egypt and Syria in the wake of the Six-Day War, the United States was forced into a different relationship with Israel.

It has been said that the 1967 war and later U.S. support for Israel triggered Arab anti-Americanism. It undoubtedly deepened anti-American sentiment among the Arabs, but it was not the trigger. Egypt became pro-Soviet in 1956 despite the U.S. intervention against Israel, while Syria and Iraq became pro-Soviet before the United States began sending military aid to Israel. But after 1967, the United States locked into a strategic relationship with Israel and became its primary source of military assistance. This support surged during the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, with U.S. assistance rising from roughly 5 percent of Israeli gross domestic product to more than 20 percent a year later.

The United States was strategically dependent on Israel to maintain a balance of power in the eastern Mediterranean. But even during this period, the United States had competing strategic interests. For example, as part of encouraging a strategic reversal into the U.S. camp after the 1973 war, the United States negotiated an Israeli withdrawal from Sinai that the Israelis were extremely reluctant to do but could not avoid under U.S. pressure. Similarly, U.S. President Ronald Reagan opposed an Israeli invasion of Lebanon that reached Beirut, and the initial U.S. intervention in Lebanon was not against Arab elements but intended to block Israel. There was a strategic dependence on Israel, but it was never a simple relationship.

The Israelis’ national security requirements have always outstripped their resources. They had to have an outside patron. First it was the Soviets via Czechoslovakia, then France, then the United States. They could not afford to alienate the United States — the essential foundation of their national security — but neither could they simply comply with American wishes. For the United States, Israel was an important asset. It was far from the only important asset. The United States had to reconcile its support of Israel with its support of Saudi Arabia, as an example. Israel and the Saudis were part of an anti-Soviet coalition, but they had competing interests, shown when the United States sold airborne warning and control systems to the Saudis. The Israelis both needed the United States and chafed under the limitations Washington placed on them.

Post-Soviet Relations

The collapse of the Soviet Union destroyed the strategic foundation for the U.S.-Israeli relationship. There was no pressing reason to end it, but it began to evolve and diverge. The fall of the Soviet Union left Syria and Iraq without a patron. Egypt’s U.S.-equipped army, separated from Israel by a demilitarized Sinai and token American peacekeepers, posed no threat. Jordan was a key ally of Israel. The United States began seeing the Mediterranean and Middle East in totally different ways. Israel, for the first time since its founding, didn’t face any direct threat of attack. In addition, Israel’s economy surged, and U.S. aid, although it remained steady, became far less important to Israel than it was. In 2012, U.S. assistance ($2.9 billion) accounted for just more than 1 percent of Israel’s GDP.

Both countries had more room to maneuver than they’d had previously. They were no longer locked into a relationship with each other, and their relationship continued as much out of habit as out of interest. The United States had no interest in Israel creating settlements in the West Bank, but it wasn’t interested enough in stopping them to risk rupturing the relationship. The Israelis were no longer so dependent on the United States that they couldn’t risk its disapproval.

The United States and Israel drew together initially after 9/11. From the Israeli perspective, the attacks proved that the United States and Israel had a common interest against the Islamic world. The U.S. response evolved into a much more complex form, particularly as it became apparent that U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq were not going to pacify either country. The United States needed a strategy that would prevent jihadist attacks on the homeland, and that meant intelligence cooperation not only with the Israelis but also with Islamic countries hostile to Israel. This was the old problem. Israel wanted the United States focused on Israel as its main partner, but the United States had much wider and more complex relations to deal with in the region that required a more nuanced approach.

This is the root of the divergence on Iran. From Israel’s point of view, the Iranians pose an inherent threat regardless of how far along they are — or are not — with their nuclear program. Israel wants the United States aligned against Iran. Now, how close Tehran is to a nuclear weapon is an important question, but to Israel, however small the nuclear risk, it cannot be tolerated because Iran’s ideology makes it an existential threat.

The Iran Problem

From the American perspective, the main question about Iran is, assuming it is a threat, can it be destroyed militarily? The Iranians are not fools. They observed the ease with which the Israelis destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. They buried theirs deep underground. It is therefore not clear, regardless of how far along it is or what its purpose is, that the United States could destroy Iran’s nuclear program from the air. It would require, at the very least, special operations on the ground, and failing that, military action beyond U.S. capabilities. Aside from the use of nuclear weapons, it is unclear that an attack on multiple hardened sites would work.

The Israelis are quite aware of these difficulties. Had it been possible to attack, and had the Israelis believed what they were saying, the Israelis would have attacked. The distances are great, but there are indications that countries closer to Iran and also interested in destroying Iran’s nuclear program would have allowed the use of their territories. Yet the Israelis did not attack.

The American position is that, lacking a viable military option and uncertain as to the status of Iran’s program, the only option is to induce Iran to curtail the program. Simply maintaining permanent sanctions does not end whatever program there is. Only an agreement with Iran trading the program for an end of sanctions would work. From the American point of view, the lack of a military option requires a negotiation. The Israeli position is that Iran cannot be trusted. The American position is that in that case, there are no options.

Behind this is a much deeper issue. Israel of course understands the American argument. What really frightens the Israelis is an emerging American strategy. Having failed to pacify Afghanistan or Iraq, the United States has come to the conclusion that wars of occupation are beyond American capacity. It is prepared to use air power and very limited ground forces in Iraq, for example. However, the United States does not see itself as having the option of bringing decisive force to bear.

An Intricate U.S. Strategy

Therefore, the United States has a double strategy emerging. The first layer is to keep its distance from major flare-ups in the region, providing support but making clear it will not be the one to take primary responsibility. As the situation on the ground deteriorates, the United States expects these conflicts to eventually compel regional powers to take responsibility. In the case of Syria and Iraq, for example, the chaos is on the border of Turkey. Let Turkey live with it, or let Turkey send its own troops in. If that happens, the United States will use limited force to support them. A similar dynamic is playing out with Jordan and the Gulf Cooperation Council states as Saudi Arabia tries to assume responsibility for Sunni Arab interests in the face of a U.S.-Iranian entente. Importantly, this rapprochement with Iran is already happening against the Islamic State, which is an enemy of both the United States and Iran. I am not sure we would call what is happening collaboration, but there is certainly parallel play between Iran and the United States.

The second layer of this strategy is creating a balance of power. The United States wants regional powers to deal with issues that threaten their interests more than American interests. At the same time, the United States does not want any one country to dominate the region. Therefore, it is in the American interest to have multiple powers balancing each other. There are four such powers: Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Some collaborate, some are hostile, and some shift over time. The United States wants to get rid of Iran’s weapons, but it does not want to shatter the country. It is part of a pattern of regional responsibility and balance.

This is the heart of Israel’s problem. It has always been a pawn in U.S. strategy, but a vital pawn. In this emerging strategy, with multiple players balancing each other and the United States taking the minimum possible action to maintain the equilibrium, Israel finds itself in a complex relationship with three countries that it cannot be sure of managing by itself. By including Iran in this mix, the United States includes what Israel regards as an unpredictable element not solely because of the nuclear issue but because Iran’s influence stretches to Syria and Lebanon and imposes costs and threats Israel wants to avoid.

This has nothing to do with the personalities of Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu. The United States has shown it cannot pacify countries with available forces. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome. If the United States is not involved on the ground in a conflict, then it becomes a problem for regional powers to handle. If the regional powers take the roles they must, they should balance against each other without a single regional hegemon emerging.

Israel does not want to be considered by the United States as one power among many. It is focused on the issue of a nuclear Iran, but it knows that there is no certainty that Iran’s nuclear facilities can be destroyed or that sanctions will cause the Iranians to abandon the nuclear program. What Israel fears is an entente between the United States and Iran and a system of relations in which U.S. support will not be automatic.

So a speech will be made. Obama and Netanyahu are supposed to dislike each other. Politicians are going to be elected and jockey for power. All of this is true, and none of it matters. What does matter is that the United States, regardless of who is president, has to develop a new strategy in the region. This is the only option other than trying to occupy Syria and Iraq. Israel, regardless of who is prime minister, does not want to be left as part of this system while the United States maintains ties with all the other players along with Israel. Israel doesn’t have the weight to block this strategy, and the United States has no alternative but to pursue it.

This isn’t about Netanyahu and Obama, and both know it. It is about the reconfiguration of a region the United States cannot subdue and cannot leave. It is the essence of great power strategy: creating a balance of power in which the balancers are trapped into playing a role they don’t want. It is not a perfect strategy, but it is the only one the United States has. Israel is not alone in not wanting this. Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia don’t want it, either. But geopolitics is indifferent to wishes. It understands only imperatives and constraints.

Jorge Alberto Villalón Y.

Jesus Marzo Fernandez:

HABLANDO EN SERIO

EMO(Que raro)LRGM

–Al parecer , se le esta poniendo la cosa dificil a los opositores,

Raul elimino a Paya, Cristina a Nisman, Putin a Boris Nemtson.

Y Maduro -como le faltan pantalones- los mete en Ramo Verde

y despues no sabe que hacer con ellos. Por eso, le recomiendo

a los amigos, hay que cuidarse la boca, la cosa esta mala.

—El gobierno cubano esta fatal, le dijeron que si se portaban bien

durante 6 meses lo sacaban de la lista de paises terroristas,

Ahora cogen un barco chino en Cartagena con 20 contenedores

armas con destino a Cuba La suerte es que Santos esta en el poder

vamos a ver como salen de esta. No escarmientan.

Para terminar, los epecialistas que pronosticaban una caida

total de los precios de la gasolina La Sonora trompetilla.

Al parecer el periplo de Maduro dio resultado. En el CASH

todo el mundo se pone de acuerdo

SALUDOS A TODOS, MARZO FERNANDEZ

Kerry Warns Israel PM Against Revealing Details of Iran Nuclear Deal

US Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday warned Israel’s prime minister against revealing details at his upcoming speech to US Congress of an Iran nuclear deal that world powers are in the process of negotiating.

While he did not mention Benjamin Netanyahu by name, Kerry told reporters in Geneva he was “concerned by reports” that “selective details” of the deal aimed at curbing Tehran’s nuclear programme would be revealed in the coming days.

His comments come after an Israeli official said the Jewish state knew about the emerging agreement and that the prime minister would elaborate in his congressional address.

Kerry is due to meet his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif in the Swiss lakeside town of Montreux later Monday for talks on the Iran agreement.

“The best way to deal with the question surrounding this nuclear programme is to find a comprehensive deal, but not a deal which comes at any costs,” he told reporters.

“We have made some progress, but we still have a long way to go, and the clock is ticking.”

The P5+1 group of world powers that are negotiating with Iran have until March 31 to reach a framework for a deal, which would then be firmed up and officially signed on June 30.

IMORTANT INFORMATION YOU SHOULD SHARE — 2-21-2015

“There are none so blind as those who will not see.”��������������������
When you read this you will understand why Obama refuses to say the words “radical Islam.”..

I didn’t originate this, but it checked out with Google and Snopes�

Did you know that we now have a Muslim government?
John Brennan, current head of the CIA converted to Islam while stationed in Saudi Arabia.
Obama’s top advisor, Valerie Jarrett, is a Muslim who was born in Iran where her parents still live.
Hillary Clinton’s top advisor, Huma Abedin is a Muslim, whose mother and brother are involved in the now outlawed Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Assistant Secretary for Policy Development for Homeland Security, Arif Aikhan, is a Muslim.
Homeland Security Advisor, Mohammed Elibiary, is a Muslim.
Obama advisor and founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Salam al-Marayati, is a Muslim.
Obama’s Sharia Czar, Imam Mohamed Magid, of the Islamic Society of North America is a Muslim.
Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships, Eboo Patel, is a Muslim.
And last but not least, our closet Muslim himself, Barack Hussein Obama.

It’s questionable if Obama ever officially took the oath of office when he was sworn in. He didn’t repeat the oath properly to defend our nation and our Constitution. Later the Democrats claimed he was given the oath again in private?
CIA director John Brennan took his oath on a copy of the Constitution, not a Bible.
Congressman, Keith Ellison took his oath on a copy of the Qur’an.

Congresswoman Michele Bachman was vilified and almost tarred and feathered by Democrats when she voiced her concern about Muslims taking over our government.
Considering all these appointments, it would explain why Obama and his minions are systematically destroying our nation, supporting radical Muslim groups worldwide, opening our southern border, and turning a blind eye to the genocide being perpetrated on Christians all over Africa and the Middle East.
The more damage Obama does, the more arrogant he’s become!
Our nation and our government has been infiltrated by people who want to destroy us. It can only get worse!

Ted Cruz Spills Secret of GOP Sabotage

It baffles me why the GOP ever compromises with liberals.
Check it out:

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, strongly suggested the fix was in from the beginning by GOP leaders to sabotage the fight against Obama’s amnesty, saying, “The cake was baked from the start.”

The senator said that was evident to him immediately when GOP leaders chose a bill funding the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, as the vehicle to try to stop the amnesty President Obama granted to five-million illegal immigrants by executive order in November.

Cruz made the observations while speaking to a small group of reporters across the street from the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, on Thursday.

WaPo: 4 Pinocchios to Obama For Repeating False Claims on Keystone

By Drew MacKenzie

The Washington Post’s Fact Checker Glenn Kessler has given four Pinocchios to President Barack Obama for his statement that the Keystone XL pipeline proposal “bypasses the United States.”
After Obama had vetoed a bill in Congress last week to approve the construction of the oil pipeline from Canada, he made a deceptive statement to a North Dakota radio station defending his position, according to Kessler.
“I’ve already said I’m happy to look at how we can increase pipeline production for U.S. oil, but Keystone is for Canadian oil to send that down to the Gulf,” Obama said during the interview.

“It bypasses the United States and is estimated to create a little over 250, maybe 300 permanent jobs. We should be focusing more broadly on American infrastructure forAmerican jobsand American producers, and that’s something that we very much support.”

But Kessler said that Obama had repeated false claims about Keystone and managed to make his statements “even more misleading than before” by suggesting that the pipeline would not benefit American producers “at all.”
“The Fact Checker … takes no position on the pipeline, and has repeatedly skewered both sides for overinflated rhetoric,” Kessler wrote. “Yet the president’s latest comments especially stand out.
“When the president says ‘it bypasses the United States,’ he leaves out a very important step. The crude oil would travel to the Gulf Coast, where it would be refined into products such as motor gasoline and diesel fuel.
“Current trends suggest that only about half of that refined product would be exported, and it could easily be lower.”
Kessler noted that a report released in February by IHS Energy, which consults for energy companies, said that “Canadian crude making its way to the USGC [Gulf Coast] will likely be refined there, and most of the refined products are likely to be consumed in the United States.”

Although environmentalists say IHS comments are self-serving, the findings are similar to those in the State Department’s environmental impact statements on the Keystone XL project.
“This is what is especially strange about Obama’s remarks, as he appears to be purposely ignoring the findings of the lead Cabinet agency on the issue,” Kessler wrote.
The Fact Checker also noted that although Obama claims that Keystone is just for Canadian oil, the pipeline would actually help U.S. oil producers in North Dakota and Montana.
“Moreover, U.S. companies control about 30 percent of the production in Canada’s oil sands region,” Kessler wrote. “Thus, contrary to Obama’s suggestion, it is not strictly Canadian.
“When Obama first started making the claim that the crude oil in the Keystone pipeline would bypass the United States, we wavered between Three and Four Pinocchios — and strongly suggested he take the time to review the State Department report. Clearly, the report remains unread.”
Kessler concluded by saying: “The president’s latest remarks pushes this assertion into the Four Pinocchios column. If he disagrees with the State Department’s findings, he should begin to make the case why it is wrong, rather than assert the opposite, without any factual basis.

How Outraged will Liberals Get? Obama Supporter Louis Farrakhan calls Rudy Giuliani a “Privileged Cracker” and “Devil” for Speaking Out against Obama!

Liberals across America spent the past week with their panties in a twist about comments Mayor Rudy Giuliani made questioning President Obama’s love of country. Sure, Rudy’s comments were inflammatory and liberals could have debated the issue – instead they chose to attack Giuliani’s opinion (based on examples) with ad hominems and mean-spirited rhetoric. One Obama supporter jumped the shark though with his attacks on the former New York City Mayor.

How did you grow up, Giuliani? A privileged cracker? Or I should say, a privileged devil?!

You grew up on the sweat and the blood of black men and women who made America before your fathers got here! All of you Europeans, you recent immigrants that have found a home in America, and you are so happy. But you walking on our blood. Our blood soaks the soil of America!”

Yep. It’s not just Giuliani who is a horrible person for living a full and happy life in North America… all European immigrants and their descendants are evil, vile creatures for being so happy while walking on the “blood soaked soil of America.” The logical fallacies that must fill the mind of Farrakhan and his supporters are simply astounding, and the worst part isn’t that his hatred is being carried on to the next generation … no, it’s that he and his followers could be living a similarly happy and productive life if they’d simply leave behind their violent and racist rhetoric.

I’m not saying “forget” about what has happened in the past. I am saying build for the future, just like your ancestors did. The men and women who pushed for Civil Rights immediately after the Civil War through the 1960’s fought hard for the future, and now Farrakhan and his ilk are so thoroughly focused on the past that they’ve become stuck – mired in a sea of vitriol and angst.

Netanyahu Tells AIPAC World Must Not Let Iran Go Nuclear

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted Monday that his plans to address Congress are not aimed at disrespecting President Barack Obama, even as he assailed the U.S. leader’s bid for a nuclear deal with Iran as a threat to his country’s survival.

“I have a moral obligation to speak up in the face of these dangers while there is still time to avert them,” Netanyahu said during an address to a pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington.

As Netanyahu spoke, Secretary of State John Kerry was opening a new round of talks with Iran in Geneva aimed at reaching a framework nuclear deal ahead of a late March deadline. Obama views the prospect of a nuclear accord with the Islamic republic as a central component of his foreign policy legacy.

While Obama and Netanyahu have never had a warm personal relationship, the prime minister’s visit to Washington this week has exposed the depth of their tensions.

At the heart of this latest flare-up is Netanyahu’s decision to address a joint meeting of Congress, a Tuesday event during which he is sure to criticize the nuclear talks. The speech was arranged by Republican leaders without the Obama administration’s knowledge, a move the White House blasted as a breach of diplomatic protocol.

Netanyahu’s visit to Washington comes two weeks before Israeli elections, heightening the political overtones. Obama won’t meet the prime minister while he is in town, citing longstanding policy to avoid appearing to play favorites in foreign elections.

In a preview of his speech to lawmakers, Netanyahu suggested that Obama did not — and could not— understand the extent of Israeli concerns about Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear bomb.

“U.S. leaders worry about the security of their country,” he said. “Israeli leaders worry about the survival of their country.”

Despite his sharp rhetoric, Netanyahu declared that the relationship between the U.S. and Israel remains strong.

“Reports of the demise of the Israeli-U.S. relationship is not only premature, they’re just wrong,” Netanyahu said. “Our alliance is stronger than ever.”

Netanyahu’s remarks at the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee were being bracketed by speeches from a pair of senior U.S. officials: U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power and National Security Adviser Susan Rice.

Power spoke warmly of the ties between the U.S. and Israel, saying the relationship was rooted in “shared, fundamental values.” She highlighted the billions of dollars in military assistance Washington provides Israel and the constant defense the U.S. provides Israel at the United Nations.

Power said the deep ties between the longtime allies meant their relationship “should never be politicized.”

The ambassador also defended Obama’s pursuit of an accord with Iran and said the president shared Israel’s commitment to preventing Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

“If diplomacy should fail, we know the stakes of a nuclear-armed Iran,” she said. “We will not let it happen.”

Rice was expected to deliver a more specific rebuttal to Netanyahu’s criticism of the U.S.-led nuclear negotiations. She also has been among the most outspoken critics of the prime minister’s plan to address Congress, calling the move “destructive” to the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Netanyahu has long been suspicious of Obama’s negotiations with Iran, fearing the U.S. and its negotiating partners are prepared to leave Tehran on the cusp of developing a nuclear weapon. He has stepped up his public criticism as the parties inch closer to the March deadline.

U.S. and Israeli officials have reported progress on a deal that would freeze Iran’s nuclear program for 10 years but allow it to slowly ramp up in the later years of an agreement. Netanyahu has vigorously criticized the contours of such an agreement, saying it suggests the U.S. and its partners have “given up” on stopping Iran from being able to get a bomb.

A Netanyahu adviser told reporters traveling with the prime minister to Washington Sunday that Israel was well aware of the details of the emerging nuclear deal and that they included Western compromises that were dangerous for Israel. Still, he tried to lower tensions by saying that Israel “does not oppose every deal” and was merely doing its best to warn the U.S. of the risks.

Kerry, who is in Switzerland for the next round of nuclear negotiations, warned Israel against releasing “selective details” of the negotiations.

“Doing so would make it more difficult to reach the goal that Israel and others say they share,” said Kerry, who is negotiating alongside diplomats from Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China.

Just a decade ago, Saudi Arabia maintained unequivocal power over oil prices.

As the largest producer in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), it has the power to turn the spigot off and on during oil crashes and rebounds, essentially dictating the price of oil in the global market.

But it seems the Saudis are tiring of this role. And now, the United States is ready to take control…

Heavy Is the Head That Wears the Crown

As the chart below shows, Saudi Arabia is still the dominant producer of oil within OPEC. It has the ability to produce more oil to temper prices or cut production to bolster prices.

Most recently, the Saudis used this power to flood the market and spark the oil crash, along with the other members of OPEC, in an effort to eliminate competition from the United States.

This ability to efficiently turn on or off production makes them the “swing producer.”

But the swing producer also tends to get the short end of the stick…

You see, if OPEC were to reduce output to keep prices high for everyone, they’d lose part of their market share to other, less-efficient producers who are not reducing production, but are still benefiting from the effect of higher prices.

The Saudis have been signaling for some time that they are fed up with the role…

Saudi Oil Minister Ali Al-Naimi expressed his country’s frustration with the situation in an exclusive interview with the Middle East Economic Survey earlier this year:

“Is it reasonable for a highly efficient producer to reduce output, while the producer of poor efficiency continues to produce? That is crooked logic. If I reduce, what happens to my market share? The price will go up, and the Russians, the Brazilians, [and] U.S. shale oil producers will take my share,” said Al-Naimi.

Saudi Arabia saw the rise of shale oil from the United States and realized that it would, once again, have to lose market share in order to stay profitable.

Thus, OPEC’s refusal to cut production and keep prices high is a clear message that Saudi Arabia is done with being the swing producer.

The Saudis are hoping that prices will stay low long enough that marginal shale producers go out of business, and that those strong enough to survive will take on the role of swing producer and cut production.

And what country has been gaining ground in the oil market lately? The United States, of course…

Long Live the New King?

While the shale revolution in the United States isin full swing, it’s still quite early in the game.

You see, U.S. oil production growth wasn’t expected to peak until the mid-2020s. And that might be pushed back a bit now, as the U.S. shale producers begin to temper exploration and production until prices recover.

However, it doesn’t change the fact that the United States has the ability to ramp up production, or as we are seeing today, delay or defer production (as a group) at the drop of a hat. And the number of producers is such that we can affect global supplies, and thus prices, almost as quickly as OPEC.

Yes, the United States is ready to assume the mantle of swing producers.

This realization is putting pressure on prices.

You see, many producers, like EOG Resources (EOG) and Encana(ECA), have announced lower capital spending going forward or the intention to keep production at the same level until prices recover – essentially keeping the spigot flow steady instead of turning it on full blast. But the world oil markets just aren’t buying it.

Editor’s Note:Steady oil production is blocking any chance of a price recovery, which isn’t good for the energy positions in your portfolio. But the good news is, we’re seeing an increase in demand for another type of “commodity.” And it could lead to huge long-term profits for investors who get in ahead of time. Click here for the full story.

The reason is that there are now two entities that can turn on the oil spigot at a moment’s notice, and produce significant and measurable quantities of oil, should prices increase. Not to mention that without an increase in global demand, the price of oil isn’t going to stage a miracle recovery.

The Saudis and OPEC do have the ability to cut production (which many within the cartel are clamoring for) as does the United States.

But this time, the Saudis recognize that it’s in their best interest to wait this out and hope that enough shale production is cut back or that U.S. producers decide to permanently moderate production growth in return for higher prices. Barring a surge in global demand, this process could be protracted, and so could the slump in prices.

And the chase continues,

Karim Rahemtulla

With an expertise in emerging markets and energy, Karim Rahemtullais regarded as one of the country’s foremost resource and developing world analysts. Educated in England, Canada and the United States, Karim is fluent in several languages. His undergraduate studies were completed in Economics/Foreign Languages, and his graduate coursework was completed in Finance. Learn More >>